A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Considering the fact that the crime of this case is not good, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime even though he had several criminal records of the same kind, strict punishment against the defendant is needed.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided in depth; (b) the Defendant’s stolen vehicle was returned to the victim and the damage recovery was made in considerable parts; (c) balance in sentencing with the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct and environment; (b) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the conditions of sentencing specified in the oral argument in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate; and (d) the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s above assertion are deemed unreasonable or too heavy. Therefore,

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.